May 07, 2019

Faqir Chand believed in removing people from church

Though he started off with traditional ideas of what being a guru was all about, Chand came to realize that the mystical powers devotees attribute to gurus are merely manifestations of their own mind.

And as you can read below, Faqir Chand favored removing people from church, rather than bringing people into a church. Exactly how I feel! Churchlessness is the way to go.

This is my third post about Chand's philosophy, the previous posts being here and here.

I've been focusing on Faqir Chand recently because I know that quite a few visitors to this blog are interested in the "guru game." I stopped playing it about 15 years ago, but I realize how alluring it can be, and how difficult to give up.

Chand is sort of like a halfway house for those addicted to guru devotion. His teachings contain both some praise for gurus and also a lot of criticism.

In my current churchless frame of mind, I don't need any convincing that supernatural visions and mystical powers don't exist, being the product of delusions, illusions, or outright fraud. However, in my true believing days I would have benefitted from Chand's philosophy, since he ended up as a guru who exposed how gurus deceive devotees.

I much appreciate the numerous comments David Lane has been leaving on my blog posts about Faqir Chand, since he is an expert on Chand. Other people who have a stake in the guru game have written some comments about Chand that are untrue, so I'm glad Lane has been correcting the Chand'ian record.

Here's some comments from David Lane that I found especially interesting. I've boldfaced portions that struck me as deserving of emphasis.

Several years ago we had long discussions on Faqir Chand on RS [Radha Soami] studies and what he taught. I have long tended to favor the later Faqir writings and his most iconoclastic views, especially when he pointed out how little we actually know.

However, MBW and others pointed out that a close reading of Faqir shows he had a multi-leveled approach. Where for those in the beginning stages would indeed do dhyan, simran, and bhajan, and even have deep devotional feelings towards their chosen Istha-deva/guru.

But after this was achieved, Faqir would then stress realizing that the whole game was a projection of one's own mind and that we should let it go. I know this from personal experience as Faqir knew when he first met me that I was attached to Charan Singh and was in a very devotional frame of mind.

He then predicted the following (direct quote from the book published by Manavta Mandir called The Master Speaks to the Foreigners):

"There are two schools of thought. The aim of one school is to bring people into its circle. They bring people into their church. But I remove the people from the church also. To be in a Church is a blessing but to die in a Church is a curse. You cannot understand my views as yet, because you have to do a lot of work in your worldly life as yet. The present devotional ideas which you have now, will change after some years and then in the old age you will come to this line. This is my prophecy about you."

I think, of course, Faqir was right.

One begins to see through the "dogma" of RS and realize that much of what we believe is our own projection, our own desires. We think at first the guru is perfect or all knowing. Later, we mature a bit and see the humanness of it all. Which I think is a healthy and altogether wise thing to realize.

Now, at one end of Faqir's writings there is the advocacy of more typical Sant related ideas and then at the other, more radical end, there is a realization to go beyond it. This one can see in Faqir's classic HANGING ON THE GALLOWS metaphor:

"So, when did I realize the element? Since I have come to understand that I do not go anywhere. So, who goes in their inner visions? It’s their own mind, their own faith. So what do I do now? Because I was searching for my final abode or source, I leave the mind. When I go within and meditate, I leave the shapes, forms and colors. There is no form of the guru, no shape, nothing else. Only light and sound remain.

The entity that is inside me listens to the sound within and sees the light, that entity is something else entirely. The sound is something else. The light is something else. You listen to the sound within – you are separate from the sound. You see sun or moon inside, see light within. Light is separate from the one witnessing the light. When I search for that entity or witness, I CEASE TO EXIST."

Now, it should be acknowledged that Faqir was also quite traditional in some ways, especially on his views relating to sex. I have a couple of great stories relating to this that I should share one day. I will say this, however. Only someone like Faqir would say in open satsang at the age of 89 or so that the night before he had a "wet" dream and said that even at his age such things happened.

I can well imagine how the sangat "heard" that one! It was Faqir's transparency on his humanness that makes him so valuable, not whether he was enlightened or not (since that it is a theological question and open to endless debate).

In my conversations with Darshan Singh, for instance, I noticed he told me things in private that he would most likely NEVER say in public. So I am not in the least surprised that these gurus (from Charan to Kirpal to Darshan to whatever) would confess honestly about not knowing of their respective appearances.

We even have Charan on record saying he was unaware of appearing to a woman in her prayers. Sawan in Spiritual Gems saying something similar as well. Faqir's point is an obvious one and we have overwhelming proof that these gurus know much less than is advertised.

No need to mention a current guru losing 700 million dollars (jk)! I think of Faqir as an existential guru. As Faqir said near the end, "In the process of evolution, I appeared or manifested. Similarly, you also appeared. I did not exist before, and I won’t exist again."

Or, more poetically, "In that place there is no happiness or unhappiness, no truth or untruth, neither sin nor virtue. There is no day or night, no moon or sun, There is Radiance without Light." P.S. if you wish to understand the "humanity" of Faqir, his last letter from the hospital before he died is remarkable for its utmost honesty..... will post that later.

----------------------------------

Dear Dogribb, Faqir even criticized his own guru as not being as forthcoming as he should. While Faqir acknowledges that there are various levels of instructions, the most radical part of Faqir is when he wishes to question why these gurus were not as forthcoming as they should be. Here is a quote from a 1980 satsang in London,

"Today’s gurus – they don’t tell us anything. They keep repeating – Shabad, Shabad, Shabad, Guru, Guru, Guru. Look at the lives of Gurus. Nirankari guru died and gave his throne to his son. The Beas ones put their grandson on the throne. Hansa established his son as a successor. In this world, may Paramatma or supreme lord save us from these gurus. These gurus have fooled us and looted us. They did not tell the truth."

----------------------------------

Since Ishwar Puri is fond of making stuff up about Faqir Chand that is completely not true, I think it is important to set the record straight.

(1) Faqir Chand did not appoint anyone of his family as successors. Instead he appointed several of his disciples to carry on his teaching, including Dr. I.C. Sharma (whom I have met on several occasions), Yogini Mataji (Tripta Devi), and Bhagat Munshi Ram.

(2) As for Faqir's son, Faqir told Mark Juergensmeyer this: "My own son is well placed. He draws about Rupees 2500 per month. He is a big metallurgist, Russia returned." He never worked as a guru. Ishwar simply made that story up.

(3) As for Yogini Mataji, she refused to continue being a guru and wouldn't initiate anyone and went into relative seclusion. Here is the only movie I know that has film of her....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYQXjIRBfs

----------------------------------

What may look like a miracle (and I am sure it seems like such to the person who has such experiences) is, according to Faqir, isn't due to any guru as such, but rather the intense faith and devotion which (using Faqir's own words) becomes "creative" and produces the desired effect.

Faqir gives a number of quotes relating to this. Here is just one:

"The individual worships, adores and makes offerings to some living guru, image, god, or goddess according to his own faith, belief and devotion; in return he gets the fruit of his own devotion and faith. The guru, of the worshipped, gets credit and involves himself in the false prestige and fame. While the worshipper achieves his end, or motive due to his own faith and belief. In fact, the guru or the worshipped does nothing to fulfill the desires of the devotee; it is all the faith of the latter."

----------------------------------

I don't think visions of Faqir or related incidents are miracles at all. Rather, they are merely projections by various individuals who then ATTRIBUTE such things to Faqir or to other gurus. The mind is a great conjurer and it is us (usually after the fact) that then attribute this or that apparition to one guru or another.

A good example of how this works is provided by Faqir Chand himself, where to his great credit he tries to see if he could come up with a rational explanation for why he had a vision of his guru Shiv Brat Lal before ever meeting him and even then getting the "correct" address of his ashram.

Here is Faqir's narrative:

"In the meantime I got a permanent job in the Indian railways and was posted as Assistant Station Master at Baganwala. But my craving to see the Lord did not diminish; rather, during this time it reached its peak. Once I wept for twenty-four hours continuously for a glimpse of the Lord. Doctors were called in. They administered medicine to me. At about five o'clock in the morning I saw in a vision the form of Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal. He drew water from a nearby well and helped me take a bath, and then told me his address in Lahore."

Now on the surface that seems somewhat remarkable given that Faqir consciously wasn't aware of Shiv Brat Lal (he was then a relatively obscure guru) and got his address correct.

But later Faqir reasoned that because Shiv Brat Lal was a prolific writer, then he may have come across one of his writings or magazines and in so doing got a picture of what he looked like and also the address which was listed in one of those writings.

These two things (picture of Shiv Brat Lal and the address)--though not consciously remembered--manifested in his dream-vision and Faqir took that as a wondrous sign. Faqir deflated the miracle.

I suggest that what seems paranormal looks less paranormal the more information we get about what really happened. I know from my own life that this is true, since I have written extensively about how my own Teaching Assistant, Michelle Lopez, had a vision of Charan Singh dying almost exactly at the time he died.

It is a remarkable story, no doubt, but one that I believe can be explained rationally without having to invoke miracles and the like.

I also got a chance to go through much of Faqir's correspondence which he shared with me back in 1978 where there were many letters about him appearing to so and so and how it was amazing. Faqir would at each turn tell me that he knew nothing about it.

Thus, these stories about Faqir are not miracles, though the disciples may believe such. They are what the mind can produce under stressful circumstances.

----------------------------------

Dear S, Concerning Charan Singh and not knowing about him "appearing" to a woman in her prayers. It is an interesting story. Here is what happened.

Back in 1984 I published a two part article entitled "The Enchanted Land" for FATE Magazine. It described my visit with several shabd yoga gurus, including Charan Singh, Partap Singh (Tarn Taran), Yogini Mataji (Tripta Devi), Faqir Chand, etc.

Well, the chief editor of FATE magazine wrote me an urgent letter and said that a Catholic woman from Oklahoma was trying to [get] in contact with me. They asked for my permission for her to call me. I said yes, not knowing exactly what all the fuss was about.

It turns out this woman, who was deeply Catholic, was praying one morning when she had an unexpected vision of a spiritual being with a turban and a long beard who told her that she would learn more about him the next day. She then reads the current issue of FATE magazine (I think she looked through it at the magazine store) and in it she saw a picture of Charan Singh that was embedded in my article.

She was wonderstruck since she claimed that it was the same person she had a vision of in her prayers. She wanted to talk to me about it so we had a long chat on the phone. She knew absolutely nothing about Radhasoami or Sant Mat or even eastern philosophy.

I wasn't sure what to make of it (being skeptical by nature), so I suggested she write Charan Singh directly about it and see what he said concerning it. She did and Charan wrote a 4 page letter back to her (a bit unusual, given that his letters were not more than a page or two).

She then contacted me and we went over the letter line by line. In that letter and in no uncertain terms Charan explained that he was UNAWARE of appearing to her or to others who claimed such things. He suggested that it was a product of her own mind and he had nothing to do with it. Hope this helps.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear Spence,

I can see we are indeed having differences in how we approach these subjects.

Having read Ian Stevenson's classic study on reincarnation and a number of his other books, and though I definitely applaud his painstaking work in this area (as did, lest we forget, Carl Sagan) I am not so certain (as you appear to be) that there are not alternative explanations arising from an admixture of childhood memories, keeping in mind that such recollections are told after the fact and must be sieved through contextual and time-laden medium.

As for the surfing experience I mentioned, I actually agree with your skepticism since many memories get convoluted over time..... like fish stories where the fish gets bigger in the retelling. So, yes, good to raise questions about such remembrances.

Actually, you don't have to accept my recollection at face value. You can certainly doubt it and that may indeed prove MORE helpful than you simply taking what I said and believing it.

Why? Because your doubts may jar my memory and I may remember a forgotten detail or perhaps I was indeed mistaken.

That I suggest is altogether healthy. Indeed, human conversation is predicated on raising such questions. Otherwise, we would be mindless zombies accepting whatever was told us from others.

It is fine for Einstein to believe his vision, but that doesn't make it so.

That is why he spent 10 years after he wrote his special theory of relativity in 1905 working on the General theory..... he wanted to make sure he got his differential equations correct so that his "vision" could indeed past rational scrutiny BY OTHERS..... that is how science works.

We come up with our hunches, our guesses, and we then test them in the cauldron of the empirical world and see how well such reflections hold up.

Again, my point about gravity was about the process of science not about the ontological "isness" of things in themselves.

I even lecture the first day in each of my courses on this very subject.... since nobody knows exactly what matter IS, but only certain aspects for which we have access. But this doesn't deter us from knowing about those features which we can measure and which we can manipulate.

For example, my car mechanic may know nothing about what IS a quantum within the gas that is filling my tank, but he can indeed fix my engine and get it running again.

No need to confuse the ontology of something with a practical application of how something works within a certain contextual arena.

Richard Feynman gives a great lecture on this very subject when he talks about the difference between knowing the name of something and actually understanding what it is.

I think Charan's advice was wise, but of course one makes choices about whatever advice we are given and how we respond..... sometimes smartly, sometimes stupidly.

As you know, there is no such thing as scientific "proof". Rather given the inductive nature of science it is always tentative and thus even when we have statistical significance we still have a measure of doubt. That doubt is how science progresses, since it opens a door for further investigation by which to upturn what was believed unassailable.

Satoshi Kanazawa explains it this way:

"Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science."

You said you would not "pretend to know" but earlier you stated clearly that "I'm convinced science will discover one day the means by which children can remember their past life details that, when investigated, have no practical explanations possible."

The presumption here is that there is such a thing as "past" lives. A skeptic, of course, would question that premise and want to explore that issue deeper.

I think, again, we at talking past each other.

But I do enjoy the discussion, even if we don't see eye to eye on these interesting issues.

As for reincarnation and Sagan, here is a little article we wrote many moons ago.

Hi Brian
Yes space time is a fact, just as is gravity. We know this by its effect on other things.

You wrote
"Space-time can't be seen, but instruments detected the ripples in it."

The ripples are like shock waves. We are measuring particles in a laser beam that are being pushed in waves. Basically, it's like measuring leaves floating on water. We still can't measure the water directly.

We know something is there by its effect on other things. Just as we know there must be gravity because the movement of celestial bodies in relation to each other tells us their mass influences each other. Einstein improved on the accuracy of this model by replacing a flat linear model with a surface that would be warped, and from there determined this would effect the passage of time, which is the movement of matter through space.

But what is the actual physical thing behind this invisible space time? Nothing that can be seen by any instrument. We can only detect its effect on matter. But what is it that spans empty space as the agent of this 'gravity'... We know how space-time is warped by matter, but as far as physical detection of Particles or energy, is still empty space.

The problem is one of connecting general relativity to quantum merchanics, and it's still in the theoretical stages.

On a recent CofC thread, you opined not only about Ishwar Puri's actions
but even his motivations:

Since Ishwar Puri is fond of making stuff up about Faqir Chand that is completely not true, I think it is important to set the record straight.......Why Ishwar did this is self-serving to the max.

I have no idea why he would invent such a story about Faqir's son, except that it
allows him to claim that Faqir really did know...... but this goes against everything Faqir himself stated.

Ishwar has said a number of things about Faqir Chand that are not only inaccurate, but completely made up in order to whitewash Faqir's repeated statements about being
"unknowing" about the visions attributed to him.

Currently on this thread, you suggest a strategy for informing "inner experience"
(presumably other judgments as well) while remaining open to alternative explanation/interpretation:
In any case, we can take a two prong approach: describe our inner experiences phenomenologically (to get full flavor of what it was like) and still be open for alternative explanations or interpretations of what then just transpired.

Was that an "inner experience", regrettable conspiracy theory, or just
a snap judgment which informed your insights into Ishwar Puri's actions
and motivations. Did you try to reach out in any way to Ishwar before
characterizing his actions as "made up in order to whitewash Faqir's
repeated statements about being 'unknowing' about the visions
attributed to him?"

Since, you remain open to alternatives, could you envision Ishwar
mis-remembering or being given an erroneous narrative. Fake facts
about Guru's and their families tends to go viral...

Or, maybe Ishwar wasn't whitewashing at all... rather he was --as
Faqir did-- encouraging disciples to go "inside" to find the truth within
themselves about miraculous powers/events?

Hi David
The work of the Department of Perceptual Studies is painstaking, even more so since Dr. Stevenson's passing, and there are indeed several dozen cases where the possibility of any practical explanation has been eliminated to a statistically significant degree. That is scientific significance, the same used to determine scientific evidence of an independent variable, independent of any practical alternative.

What I recommend is that you become more familiar with both these particular cases and the methods involved to determine this significance.

Then you will see that in these particular cases, the possibilities you have conjectured, along with several others, have been eliminated.

And then you can comment on them from a scientific perspective.

In the dark, any conjecture is possible.

But in these cases, that number in the dozens, out of the thousands investigated, have the probability of a spurious result reduced to the levels required for statistical significance.

Since you have conjectured about these things, why not honor the scholarship and the actual evidence?

It will disprove your conjecture that only practical and known sources could be the cause of these reports.

Those conjectures are reasonable in the thousands of remaining cases. But not these several dozen.

In short David, you may test your own conjectures against the actual scientific evidence.

Yes, any scientific result can be overturned. But the point of science is to reduce that likelihood, which in those cases they have done, beyond any reasonable doubt. That's why we use science.

If you honor science, even if the evidence goes against your beliefs, then at least you are a credible proponent of science.

These studies, by the way, don't prove reincarnation exists. They only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these children had independent knowledge of several verified points about someone who lived in the past, where no one around them could have possibly had access to those detailed points of information.

You are a scholar, please take a closer look. It's fascinating reading.

"Abstract: Numerous cases of young children who report
memories of previous lives have been studied over the last
50 years. Though such cases are more easily found in cultures
that have a general belief in reincarnation, they occur in the
West as well. This article describes the case of James
Leininger, an American child who at age two began having
intense nightmares of a plane crash. He then described being
an American pilot who was killed when his plane was shot
down by the Japanese. He gave details that included the name
of an American aircraft carrier, the first and last name of a
friend who was on the ship with him, and a location and other
specifics about the fatal crash. His parents eventually discov-
ered a close correspondence between James's statements and
the death of a World War II pilot named James Huston.
Documentation of James's statements that was made before
Huston was identified includes a television interview with his
parents that never aired but which the author has been able to
review.
Key words: reincarnation, memory"

Hi Gerber
You wrote
"Actually, doubting the "truthiness" of another subjective experience can be very helpful and
enlightening."

According to who? And to what purpose? If you have reason to doubt then offer your evidence but if all you have is conjecture, that's just replacing one idea you don't like with another you do.... And without evidence it may be replacing an idea you don't like with a prejudice you do, and not doing the work of gathering evidence, and real investigation.

You wrote
"Our legal system does it all the time, especially with witnesses."

The legal process is exactly the opposite of mere critique. In a court you must do your investigation and bring real evidence to light. That's the difference between opinion and fact.

You wrote
" I don't see why "conjecturing" (to use your terminology) about another's subjective experience is frowned upon."

Without evidence, without investigation, and only mere opinion, there is no science, just a debate between prejudice and experience. Hardly worth the dialogue.

You wrote
" Their questions and doubts and "conjectures" might be an avenue of seeing things in a different and perhaps more helpful light."

Or just meaningless and unrealistic alternatives. Without a basis of experience, preferably scientific, could just be a waste of time. If the conjecture is not based upon an understanding of the experience, it may just be a distillation of ignorance. And when facts are provided and the person who raises the conjecture refuses to acknowledge that information, or dismisses it summarily, then you have neither science nor critical thinking. You have ignorance defending its perspective. You have prejudice justifying itself.

Hi David
I followed the link you provided, and ended up, somehow at
"Discover a Revolutionary New Technology For Your Mind
To Activate Your Super Human Potential and Become
The Greatest Possible Version of Yourself.. A free global online event by Keen Wilbur..."

The greatest possible version of myself is empty space. Is that what Ken is selling?

I am a bit unclear about your recent posts. I want to make sure that I don't misinterpret what you are suggesting.

You cite the following the case of James
Leininger and give the following:

"Abstract: Numerous cases of young children who report
memories of previous lives have been studied over the last
50 years. Though such cases are more easily found in cultures
that have a general belief in reincarnation, they occur in the
West as well. This article describes the case of James
Leininger, an American child who at age two began having
intense nightmares of a plane crash. He then described being
an American pilot who was killed when his plane was shot
down by the Japanese. He gave details that included the name
of an American aircraft carrier, the first and last name of a
friend who was on the ship with him, and a location and other
specifics about the fatal crash. His parents eventually discov-
ered a close correspondence between James's statements and
the death of a World War II pilot named James Huston.
Documentation of James's statements that was made before
Huston was identified includes a television interview with his
parents that never aired but which the author has been able to
review. Key words: reincarnation, memory""

You must certainly be aware that this entire episode concerning the boy has been
found to be very questionable and has many loopholes in it, especially since the very story was told after the fact many years later by his parents.

I even wrote about it myself in that article I linked earlier.

So, do you really think this particular story "prove[s] beyond a reasonable doubt that these children had independent knowledge of several verified points about someone who lived in the past, where no one around them could have possibly had access to those detailed points of information"???

Sorry, but we are not in Kansas anymore if you think that story is evidential.

But perhaps you are just referencing that story as a case of bad science?

I read recently that scientists are working on a laser to fire into empty space to break it up. Every time they try such an experiment some other unique particle appears. Until reading the new scientist article I did not know that “space” ie the area around us is not entirely empty and even space is made up off particles. Although we cannot see what space is made up off -as you mentioned above.

I would love to hear more from people on their thoughts on what would happen if space was ripped apart. On at a small level.

Hi David
You wrote
"You must certainly be aware that this entire episode concerning the boy has been
found to be very questionable and has many loopholes in it, especially since the very story was told after the fact many years later by his parents."

Actually David, the parents contacted others, verified, about the event when the boy was two years old and having nightmares. And in 2002, when the boy was four years old, their testimony was recorded in an ABC news special.

Your statement
'the very story was told after the fact many years later by his parents.' does not actually square with the research article.

May I ask what your sources were?

What I was referring to is the painstaking way the author reviews the sequence of dated and publicly available evidence, but doesn't end there. Rather they dig deeper into the records to uncover information no one could have known initially. And they review other practical explanations to build a hierarchy of probable causes. But the point is that this is the level of detail one must go through to tease out all practical possibilities.

Hi David
You wrote
"In your various posts I am a bit surprised that you take issue with individuals questioning another's subjective experiences.

" I think it is altogether healthy to have one question such things, even with those who may not be that well informed."

But you may have missed my rationale...
" Without evidence, without investigation, and only mere opinion, there is no science, just a debate between prejudice and experience. Hardly worth the dialogue."

And you may have also missed this...

" Without a basis of experience, preferably scientific, could just be a waste of time. If the conjecture is not based upon an understanding of the experience, it may just be a distillation of ignorance. And when facts are provided and the person who raises the conjecture refuses to acknowledge that information, or dismisses it summarily, then you have neither science nor critical thinking. You have ignorance defending its perspective. You have prejudice justifying itself.

"Truth Invites Inspection. But critique alone isn't inspection."

If one's intention is to learn, to investigate, then from that form an opinion, conjecture serves the purpose of generating testable hypotheses.

But if one has no intention to learn, but uses conjecture to dismiss someone else's actual experience, that is ignorance giving itself false credence.

Why make anyone wrong?

Unless you are seeking to find truth. That's not past tense. That's ongoing.

When conjectures are made about people we have never met, and their private experiences, that is pushing away informtion that challenges one's world view. It is the opposite of an open mind investigating new information guided by scientific principles.

Instead it is a closed mind filtering out new information summarily.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."
Daniel J. Boorstin

I spelled out my reasons why I think it is fine to have others question my subjective experiences or recounting of the same. I have found it helpful, even when observers from the outside may not be
that well informed.

Having taught undergraduates and graduates for over 35 years, I have learned much from those
who question and doubt my subjective realm.

Hi David
Regarding ishwar puris claim about Baba Faqir Chand being humble when he said that he has no awareness of his deciples vision of him. He (ishwar) claims in his video that he knew him personally (like you do) and actually had conversations with him and that he was informed by Faqir Chand that this was his ploy to make people meditate. Is it possible that this is true? Would we even know if we’re not there. Ishwar is well known and that he is making things up is hard to believe.

Ishwar said that Faqir Chand's own son succeeded him as a guru and that he claimed that this son alleged to "know" about his manifestations.

This is completely wrong and not even close to being accurate.

So is Ishwar a reliable source on Faqir Chand, especially when almost all of Faqir's own writings, satsangs, and talks say that he was completely unaware of appearing to his disciples and that this very realization was the key to his enlightenment?

I think not at all.

In addition, the present leader of Manavta Mandir, Professor Bhagat Ram Kamal has known Faqir Chand since 1956 and underlines exactly what Faqir (not Ishwar) stated.

I think it is wise to trust Faqir Chand's own statements in this regard, especially given Ishwar's obvious mistakes about Faqir.

Dear David
Thank you for taking your time to reply to my riposte.
I understand what you are saying and see the logic in it.
I like your surfing story with the surfer lingo too. The eternity of 6 seconds is interesting indeed.
I had a really nice day with my Brother today. We spent 6 hours together. It seemed like minutes.
Time is eternal....Sometimes

Since this conversation has apparently taken on a new form, here is an interesting article published by STUFF NZ on April 11 2019. Of course none of you will, but if you care to read the following, " The First Image of a Black Hoale Has Been Revealed By Scientists." I am not very clever but my take on things is in the comment I made as Sunyata. Scroll down to find it, if you so wish. It is also my "take" on NADA (The true meaning of the SHABD - perhaps!). I was given birth by Nada, and my name in reverse is Adnil. ( +0). Total emptiness! You can make anyone believe anything if you have the gift of the gab, be it true or otherwise.

Hi Osho,
I was hoping someone would comment on your post on May 8, 9:22 PM, and at the very least I could continue to sit as a spectator. But since no one has made a comment, I felt obliged to say "thank you" to you.

Being an RS myself for almost 30 years, (although not pissed off by their teachings). RS has a place in the world as much as other religions, sects, beliefs, but a toning down of the "perfectness" is desperately needed so seekers are not left in the RS net of teachings. I have come to realise, after throwing away that sticky net, that one must eventually walk the path alone. The small strand of hair in our eye that is obstructing our understanding of the Truth is our own making.

Your post -

"So now even GSD's message makes sense
"I will not come as your death"
disciple: "Why not?"
"Because there is no ME and no YOU and NO SACH KHAND to take you to"

Hi David!
I wanted to thank you very much for the time you took to reply.
We do have different views, but it looks like we are both somewhere in the science camp, preferring hard science where it is available.

My range of acceptable views may be broader than yours. I'm willing to accept someone's truth as fine for them, even healthy for them, on face value.

But when they wish to claim their view as some larger universal truth, then my comb gets much finer, because science is not one person's opinion.

As an experimental psychologist by training, with a minor in multivariate statistics, my orientation effects my world view. Before that I was a surface physics major, but could not stand the long hours alone in the lab.

Imagery and fantasy are how the mind functions. We are viewing the world through a construction. So if someone sees unicorns every day galloping through the streets of their city, and has Unicorn friends, and this is actually part of their happiness, then I view that just as essential to them as a remembrance of riding a fantastic wave to you. And I'm likely to ask what their favorite Unicorn did today.

My son has special neurological needs. As a child no one would play with him. Parents of several kids with special needs formed play groups, but it still had its limits.

I came to his school at the teacher's request just to watch him during recess. All the children were running and playing with each other. Sam was alone, pacing the edges of the playground, looking down and pensive.

No one would play with him simply because due to his neurological impairments he could not catch or throw a ball. And so he was never invited to join a game.

The contrast of seeing other children smiling and sunny, joking with each other, running with each other, and my son in deep contemplation entirely alone, isolated, was soul crushing.

But at the end of this day when I picked him up I asked him, "How was your day?"

He replied with a casual sense of accomplishment "Shadow and I saved the world today, Dad!"

This was the miraculous gift of imagination.

This was a real part of Sam's happiness at that time. In fact it was survival.

Then, I volunteered to be at school two days a week for recess and then it became an event at recess and we played games with many kids, always making sure Sam was a part of that.

Eventually Shadow faded into the background and Sam acknowledged he was just an imaginary friend. But he also said it was too private to discuss. I consider it sacred

Life has so little happiness for many. Humans must make their pleasures, generally, when their world, in so many cases, is devastating, and poverty and illness stricken.

Work in hospitals over four decades, and mental health programs before that, has shown me that things don't end well for all of us. And it often doesn't proceed well either. Inner happiness becomes our only happiness, and then we are happier people, and then we are happier and can connect b with others, even be helpful to others.

The world we build within ourselves can bring us some happiness. And that we can share.

If a traumatized todler begins to believe they were a heroic pilot, then that is there system. And I honour it as sacred.

My only concern is Ahimsa, that we do this without harm to anyone else or ourselves. Then anything is permissible, and a great trainer of wild unicorns worthy of praise.

If you can accept this has already happened, and that I am doing the job Gurindar, and specifically Maharaji have directed, then I think you get my post.

But if your Gurinder is different from mine, can you accept that also?

The same person can have a different relationship with different people.

I'm sure it would take a lot to accept what I've written. But if you could accept it as my personal world view, I don't think Gurinder would mind in the least. He might prefer it. But that will be your own Gurinder, either outer or inner.

David and Seeker I received a response from Mr Ishwar Puri it’s as follows
I only heard from some followers of Dr I. C. Sharma that when Dr Sharma was in USA he claimed to be the son of Baba Faqir Chand. Now I learn he was not the biological son of Baba Faqir Chand so my statement was incorrect. I regret this mistake. I will clarify this in one of my future talks. Thanks for bringing this to my notice.
Love and regards,
Ishwar Puri

It is indeed a mistake and an unintentional one. He did not mean to mislead anyone.

Thanks Anon for this clarification. However did he reply to you regarding what Faqir Chand meant by calling himself unknowing? Was he really unknowing as per Ishwar Puri? Because he said in one of his talks that Faqir Chand was being humble. It is all too confusing isn't it?

Hi Anon!
You wrote:
"Spence with all due respect to you, you don’t speak like you are grateful though."

Please tell me what gratitude looks like to you.

To me it is absolute obedience, but that obedience is to the inner Truth. And then you have the problem of illusion. But if you are not truthful to the Master inside you, to your own self, then I think that is not grateful...Even if you err in your efforts to be Truthful to yourself. So it can be outside and inside...and they rarely match anyway, but seeing both, acknowledging both is important, since here we live in the world of mind. And within we can also be bound by mind. It's a daily climb, I'd say. And not with perfect results.

What's your take?

If the outer Gurinder cannot be held accountable to the common rules of the vows, of moral living, then can the gratitude of those who love him be understood by common outer rules either?

I am following His direct orders, but of course, those are the ones he gave me within...to be True.

Spence you wrote
If the outer Gurinder cannot be held accountable to the common rules of the vows, of moral living, then can the gratitude of those who love him be understood by common outer rules either?

You are making the assumption that he cannot be held accountable, it’s a allegation someone has made against him. Instead of jumping to conclusions why not wait and see what happens.
An example of this is the case with Ishwar Puri claiming that FC’s son succeeded him when it turned out to be a misunderstanding. Many on this blog is jumped to the conclusion that he was whitewashing or changing the story to suit it whereas it was an actual mistake and done unintentionally. I’m sure there is a perfectly good story for this as well, and I think it’s vest to wait for it instead of drawing our own conclusions. Fair?

Thanks Anon, I appreciate your willingness to help yourself and others too with this confusion.

I have met Ishwar a couple of times but never got a chance to speak with him regarding Faqir. I sometimes wish whatever he says is true but the mind does not allow. Sometimes all of it makes sense and sometimes it just does not.

If Faqir is true then we do not need to follow human beings as living gods. We can follow people if we like them, but in Sant Mat, people treat them as Gods.